Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!richman From: richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) Newsgroups: rec.birds Subject: Re: inappropriate postings Summary: full cooperation is unlikely Keywords: flames indoor Message-ID: <1990Aug30.025814.22471@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 30 Aug 90 02:58:14 GMT References: <64347@oliveb.atc.olivetti.com> <1990Aug28.045702.21315@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <49314@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> Sender: mrichman@uiuc.edu Followup-To: rec.birds Distribution: na Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 72 In article <49314@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) writes: > > Nice smokescreen, Mike. Of course, this brings up the obvious >question: wouldn't a convention of this type work equally well in >rec.pets, the appropriate place? > > It's funny, this hypocrisy being exhibited by the "captive >bird" people. They invade a newsgroup where they, by definition, >don't belong. They claim not to have realized this because they failed >or pretended not to have read the charter describing this group, and >then adamantly remain after it has been made abundantly clear. They >tell us that we should tolerate their presence; a tolerance they >refused to exhibit in rec.pets, the appropriate place. They tell us >that it should be no trouble to "N" through articles that we don't >like; a technique they refused to use in rec.pets, the appropriate >place. They try to implement and adopt a header-naming convention; >something they refused to do in rec.pets, the appropriate place. >Now they tell us that we actually condon their presence (does this >sound like Saddam Hussein, or what?), though this discussion keeps >popping up every couple of months. > > They tell us that the invasion of newsgroups by inappropriate >posters has happened before on the net, firmly entrenching the >justification for their actions in the philosophy of: "two wrongs >do, indeed, make a right". They remind us that anarchy is the norm >on netnews. Yet when we try to display a little anarchy of our own, >we are soundly criticized, proving the axiom that "what is good for >the goose, should never be practiced by the gander". I can't recall >ever seeing a larger load of hypocritical bullshit in my life. > > As for my diatribe, Mike, consider this: if the "captive >bird" people went back to rec.pets, the appropriate place, these >diatribes would probably disappear. As if by magic. Besides, the >volume of traffic is so low in this group; what's a diatribe or >two among friends? And, in the words of the "captive bird" people, >"it shouldn't be much of a bother to just hit the "N" key". > > I certainly don't hold out much hope of the "captive bird" >people leaving this group, but it sure is fun blasting away at the >tissue paper they use for a shield. > >:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) > Alright, we agree on one point: It is unlikely that the captive bird folks will leave. What we don't agree on is the history. I do not think most of the posters have wandered into this group. Perhaps a few have. My hunch is that they made a calculated move. Perhaps some are birders (in the conventional sense) too. Another point of disagreement (what you refer to as my smok- escreen) is the idea that a non-moderated group is open to ALL, regardless of the stated charter. Look at the addition of bird owners as evolution. Why couldn't the header convention I mentioned work for rec.pets? Two reasons: (i) The shear volume would translate to too many posters not using the headers and, most importantly, (ii) the system blocks out articles, it does not pass them on. So every possible keyword would have to be entered in order to just let birds through. This is not only unworkable, but would be ineffi- cient. One thing birders who are upset at pet bird people who post could do would be to compile a list of names they know post the pet bird articles and add those to their kill file too (:-). A final thought would be to form a chartered group with some power to enforce the charter (read: MODERATED). Short of that, the price you pay for freedom is putting up with some articles which don't fit your idea of "correct". -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = Mike Richman Atmospheric Sciences Water Survey U. of Illinois = = email (uiuc mailserver) internet/bitnet/uucp: mrichman@uiuc.edu = = bitnet: mrichman%uiuc.edu@uiucvmd uucp: uunet!uiuc.edu!mrichman =